The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The "keep"s are all week, but have not really been refuted, and there is uncertainty whether the article can be sufficiently cleaned up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moses Hacmon[edit]

Moses Hacmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be hardly notable. Tabloid coverage of his relationship with Trisha Paytas and only minor coverage of his "Faces of Water" exhibition. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Throast (talk | contribs) 19:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. He appeared on the front page of the Sunday edition of the Los Angeles Times in an article on his work as project director for U2's The Edge (he was the featured picture; not the band). I accessed the print edition through ProQuest. There's significant coverage of him and that project in the article. See below. His work is also included in the The Routledge Companion to Butoh Performance My guess is there is probably enough coverage out there to pass GNG and NARTIST if one searches in languages other than English. I would imagine that most of the best sources on him are in Hebrew. @Throast Did your WP:BEFORE search include searching media in Israel? 4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Jack Dolan (May 15, 2016). "Faith moved a mountain". Los Angeles Times. p. A1.

• Comment - The sourcing is not impressive. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article is quite promotional, but the sources suggest that the WP:NBIO threshold is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KeepPer above. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 04:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Garhi Dilawar[edit]

Garhi Dilawar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. I can't find it in the 2011 census handbooks for either Raebareli or Sultanpur districts (Amethi district was not yet treated seperately for this census, so it would be listed in one of those two instead). I tried both names mentioned in the article ("Garhi Dilawar" or "Behrana") as well as a few possible variations but without success. Searching on GeoNames similarly turned up nothing. In any case, it doesn't have any official recognition and doesn't otherwise seem particularly noteworthy. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there are no references. Google search also doesn't return any result to show notability. Advait.kansal (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No consensus to redirect, can tackled as an editorial process. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McAlister Field[edit]

McAlister Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A university soccer field is generally not notable, and I'm not seeing any indications that this should be an exception. A WP:BEFORE search turns up no evidence of independent coverage about the facility. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks in-depth coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to USC Trojans, as possible search term. GiantSnowman 13:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @GiantSnowman, normally I'd support that, but there appears to be a McAlister Field House at another institution, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more beyond that. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnotes, my friend, hatnotes! GiantSnowman 18:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option, but I'm not sure this title as a redirect would get enough hits to justify the minor clutter of a hatnote. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it lacks in-depth coverage, and is not really notable because it's just a university soccer field, barely a stadium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There doesn't appear to be any SIGCOV but I would happily reconsider if the location should have any non-sport notability, as can be the case. Not at all sure it's worth a redirect. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the home stadium for a two-time women's NCAA soccer champion. A quick Google search for "McAlister Field Los Angeles" results in 361,000 hits. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an argument to avoid; see WP:GOOGLEHITS. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – as per GS, to USC Trojans. There's a lot of passing mentions for "McAlister Field" or "Sony McAlister Field", and coupled with a not-insignificant number of page views in the past 30 days this suggests that this would profile as a possible search term. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The daily average this year is three views per day. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to demonstrate notability. I couldn't find. Brayan ocaner (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - outside of the websites for organisations directly connected with these facilities, there is very little coverage. Passing mentions in match reports do not count towards notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: Fails WP:NBUILDING and ultimately WP:GNG. However, my opinion is that "McAlister Field" is a plausible search term and thus a WP:REDIR would be warranted. I also would not be opposed to delete. GauchoDude (talk) 13:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of any WP:SIGCOV from reliable independent sources or claim of notability in the article.Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth and Main[edit]

Sixth and Main (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:NFSOURCES and WP:NFO. Non-notable film; I did a WP:BEFORE search and found a link from Patch. Needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christopher Cain - So far, I have found a few brief mentions of the movie (such as in this book and this other book), but so far not a whole lot that could be used to pass WP:NFILM. Even if no other sources can be found, straight deletion wouldn't be appropriate in this case, though, as it can at least be used a redirect to the director's filmography. Rorshacma (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect As per Rorshacma. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's a few hits in google books [1] notable cast and director anyway.† Encyclopædius 20:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added links to three books that discuss the movie in some depth, showing notability. Given the director and cast it would be surprising if nobody had written anything about it. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per newly added book citations. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because book citations establish notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 23:56, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion is fairly similar in numerical Keeps and delete/redirects. The keep !votes are primarily that it meets GNG - they don't argue that it meets NORG, but instead several !voters pointed out that NORG doesn't compulsarily apply to non for-profit schools.

Set against that are those arguing that it does need to meet NORG, but also that the sources present are insufficient (even for GNG).

A good case could be made for a close in any direction here, but I feel that it remains non clearcut at this point is a good indication of no consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tilbury District High School[edit]

Tilbury District High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Little coverage Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets GNG with references. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily satisfies WP:GNG, as does pretty much every secondary school in the western world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Necrothesp, even schools have to prove their notability, not their existence. That is already in 2017 decided in an RFC. The Banner talk 17:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the references provide in-depth coverage of the school, and they're all local news anyway (see WP:AUD). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think WP:NCORP is the appropriate guideline, according to comments below. NemesisAT (talk) 09:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AleatoryPonderings.4meter4 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:GNG does not exclude local coverage. I've added three references which all focus on the school, establishing notability. I feel WP:GNG is now met. NemesisAT (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @NemesisAT Actually it does for schools to a certain extent. Schools fall under WP:NORG which excludes local coverage per WP:AUD. While we can use some local coverage, these must be augmented by sources with a wider audience in order to prove notability. 4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, NORG mentions "for-profit schools", implying that public schools don't fall under the criteria. Please note I am not making an argument as to the notability of this school. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What I is see is mainly a collection of dead links (Chatham News), passing mentions and database info. The Banner talk 17:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An WP:ATD exists via a redirect/merge to either Tilbury, Ontario or Lambton Kent District School Board. As for the sources in the article, the Windsor Star articles seem good, but that's only one outlet, and the other ones feel too trivial to really impress me. Jumpytoo Talk 22:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meet WP:GNG as sources in article show. Brayan ocaner (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Little Prince. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B 612 (The Little Prince)[edit]

B 612 (The Little Prince) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTE. Information on this page is already on 46610_Bésixdouze#Naming, B612_Foundation#Foundation_name, and The_Little_Prince#Astronomy Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The work and setting are quite famous and so covered in works such as Literary Wonderlands. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Little Prince. While there's certainly a lot of mentions of this in coverage of the story, I have a hard time seeing sources to justify a stand-alone article here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a matter of AfD policy-based outcome, on the basis of the sources I see in Google Scholar which appear to be plentiful and I'm going to assume that 2+ have detailed coverage on this plot element they clearly mention. Having said that, a merger or redirect to either of the ATD's listed by the nominator isn't a bad outcome at all, and we wouldn't be poorer for the lack of a standalone article on this plot element. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to The Little Prince - A reasonable redirect, but the entirety of the information here is already present on the main article for the book, and it is clearly not enough that a WP:SPLIT would be justified. Redirecting to the top of the main article on the book makes more sense than either of the proposed redirects in the nomination - someone searching for the term B 612 with the qualifier of "The Little Prince" after would very likely be looking for information on the fictional planetoid as it appears in the plot of the story, not on the real life organization that was named after it. Rorshacma (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. The entry in B612 disambig is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect to B612. This is plausible as a notable topic, but, unless expanded, there's currently so little information in the article that it's almost indistinguishable from the B612 disambiguation page. Note that there's even less information about this fictional planetoid in The Little Prince article, so it's a poor redirect target. pburka (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Somerset Football League[edit]

Mid-Somerset Football League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar case to Guildford and Woking Alliance League and other sub-county leagues that have been deleted in the past year or so for failing WP:GNG and because they are at a very low amateur level of the sport, played mostly on public pitches with very low attendances. Online searches reveal only very infrequent coverage in local papers such as this article in the Midsomer Norton, Radstock & District Journal. Similarly, a search of British newspapers yields little better than occasional results roundups in the Cheddar Valley Gazette and the Shepton Mallet Journal and other local papers with very limited audiences. As with the twenty or so other similar articles deleted recently with clear consensus, there is nothing here that establishes notability in the context of a general and global encyclopaedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A local amateur league only and therefore not notable. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as others mentioned it's a local league and doesn't qualify any Wikipedia's notability. Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As per nom. Lorenzo the great (talk) 20:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would concur with the views above that this league is not of the standard required to meet notability requirements. Dunarc (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I feel this should be deleted similar to my reason for the 5. divisjon. Just cause it exists does not mean it needs an article. SecretlyQuebecois (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC) SecretlyQuebecois is a CU-confirmed sock. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Cockshott[edit]

George Cockshott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear notable. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Being the designer of a former Olympic sailboat should be sufficiënt reason on it self to be notable in wikipedia. This fact is wel documented in the topic. Dragon Genoa (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dragon Genoa. The article as a whole needs more citations but notability is assured by the section on his boat design. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure I follow. Why does designing a former Olympic sailboat mean you qualify for an article? I do not see anyone writing any substantial biographical information about him anywhere. If he is only notable for the design, and no one is writing about him as a person, it seems as though the article should be redirected at best. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Selective merge and redirect to 12 foot dinghy. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOLYMPICS. NOLYMPICS only applies to the athletes, not people that design equipment used in sporting events. The relevant guideline here is GNG. Subject lacks significant in depth independent coverage. Not a single source in a WP:BEFORE search or in the article matches the criteria needed to demonstrate the subject passess WP:GNG. A big clue to the inappropriateness of the article is the WP:Original research (interviews with family by the page's author) given as the main source in the listed references. Article clearly violated WP:No original research. There are plenty of sources on his boat though. So I would sugged a selective merge and redirect per WP:ATD. Note to closer please consider the absence of a policy driven argument by the keep voters.4meter4 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:ANYBIO #2, and arguably #1. He won both sailing honours and design awards, and two of his designs are independently notable (the West Kirby Star and the 12 foot dinghy). Like authors of notable books, or directors of notable films, being the designer of multiple notable vessels strikes me as a significant contribution to the fields of sailing, boat design, and sport. That the article might have been written in an inappropriate manner is worth considering, but ultimately that's a fixable problem and we're talking about someone who died almost 70 years ago, not some living, self-promotional start-up CEO. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Stalwart111 I am not seeing any notable awards or sailing honors in the article. Certainly nothing that passes ANYBIO. What exactly are you referring to? Also, how do you justify the lack of sourcing? Most of the content is completely unreferenced beyond the boat design content. Lastly, the lack of coverage of him personally would seem to suggest that while his boats are notable, he is not. WP:Notability is not inherited.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1903 he won a trophy" / "In 1912 Cockshott won a design competition". While notability might not be inherited from famous relatives or because of association with singular events, the standard set by multiple notability guidelines is that the creators of notable things (books, films, buildings, etc) are notable for having made said notable contribution. Its the basis of guidelines like WP:CREATIVE. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

stalwart111 I see that. But who awarded it? What competition? The trophy could have been given by a completely unknown organization. Likewise the competition could have been trivial. There are no sources or details for these. As such, how in the world could you argue these as significant? Likewise, we don’t have enough sources citing his work as significant to make a CREATIVE claim. Where is the significant coverage on Cockshott to support your argument? 4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 Agree, absolutely. We don't know, except that the trophy was awarded by Cambridge University and was thereafter named in his honour (and subsequently presented by Cockshott to later winners). Thus he "arguably" meets #1. But, conversely, arguably not. It's sort of moot anyway, because I believe he passes #2. His designs were recognised by peers, having been "granted informal international status in 1914 and full international status was confirmed by the IYRU (now World Sailing) in 1919". That design was later recognised as an Olympic standard. And then you have the fact that the George Cockshott Cup is still presented today; recognition of his contribution to the sport, whether you consider his having won it originally or not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to agree with you if the award itself is notable. However, the award was not awarded by Cambridge University but a student club at the university. Those are two very different things. If the award itself is notable (as in it gets significant coverage in independent sources) then I would agree with this logic. However, I am not seeing any independent coverage of this award. So I still don’t think it counts towards ANYBIO. As for the other rationale, given the lack of sources on Cockshot and the design for the 12 foot dinghy being the Olympic standard, a merge/redirect to the article on the boat seems like a better choice given the lack of sources.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, inclusion at the Olympics seems adequate as a source to verify it was considered an Olympic standard, but I take your point. And I think a "student club" that was giving out silver cups in 1903 probably have a more substantive history than we might consider their modern "student club" equivalents to have. My concern with a redirect is that he's notable (in my view) for having designed two independently notable things. Other than being small sailing boats, they don't seem to have a lot in common (thought admittedly my knowledge of such things is limited). He is referenced in the lede of both articles. Though one vessel design is arguably more notable that the other, I don't think it serves any encyclopedic value to include biographical information in the article of one of his creations and not the other. And if we accept that he was responsible for creating both notable things, I'm inclined to believe he meets our inclusion criteria. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Cockshott Trophy Series", by the way, continues to this day and the cup was this year presented to the winner by George's grandson. It's now a four-event international series. I also found this magazine article which would seem to constitute significant coverage. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also brief mentions in modern media as a result, here, here, and here. The latter is particularly helpful in establishing the lasting impact his design work had on sailing and the fact that there is ongoing enthusiasm for his designs among modern sailors. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact, thinking about it a bit more, the fact that his namesake trophy is now an international event and that winning said event might be enough for someone to be considered notable in their own right (given its significance far beyond its original boundaries as a Cambridge University event), I would argue that constitutes his having had a lasting impact on the sport of sailing on its own. Its perhaps not on the same level as the Ryder Cup (Samuel Ryder), Stanley Cup (Fred Stanley), or Heisman Trophy (John Heisman), but it is significant nonetheless. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ's argument was very persusive and, in 13 days, unrefuted. Daniel (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hubbard[edit]

Zero Hubbard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor. Only one significant role and was only a supporting role. The rest are all tiny bit parts. ♟♙ (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. 95 episodes of Tribes and several other roles is enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. KidAd • SPEAK 00:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Quite apart from a cult roll in Hill Street Blues, and multiple other parts (albeit lesser ones), he provided a prolific (95 episodes) and innovative roll in Tribes, an innovation in soap opera for teenagers. Seems clearly to satisfy WP:ENT. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 01:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Long history of Work in meets WP:NACTOR. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only source provided in the article was IMDB, which fails WP:RS, particularly for a WP:BLP. Performing WP:BEFORE turns up little else in the way of reliable sources covering him in any kind of detail. ♟♙ (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find nothing but trivial mentions in a WP:BEFORE search. Tribes is his only significant role. Not clear from any sources that his appearances in Hill Street Blues constitute a significant roles as he played different parts and was not a main cast member. As such fails all criteria at WP:NACTOR and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With his role in tribes, seems notable to me, since he appeared in perhaps all the episodes (seemed liked a significant role). I think the problem with this article was that its only attribution was originally to imdb. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is lack of coverage. There isn't enough to establish GNG or even to provide any significant content. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NACTOR tends to be more of a "likely to be notable" than "is definitely notable" type of SNG, so I'm not comfortable leaning too heavily on it, particularly since (as 4meter4 notes) it's at best ambiguous whether he even meets it at all. Since there's no real argument that Hubbard passes the GNG (my searches of Google, Google Books, Proquest, and Newspapers.com don't find anything beyond textbook trivial mentions), Hubbard is in my view not notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this page. His role on Hill Street Blues was exceptional and he is a piece of Black History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.108.174 (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Particularly per Extraordinary Writ's argument that meeting NACTOR is not a guarantee of inclusion, but merely an indication of potential notability. In this case, exhaustive searches on multiple databases including historical records like Newspapers.com have turned up no sources. The argument that his role had a cult following or was historically significant seems to not be borne out by the coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Broekhuizen[edit]

Josephine Broekhuizen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums. A Google search does not bring up any secondary sources showing birth, education, or career. Broekhuizen has one of her works in the Low Parks Museum that is listed on ArtUK. Not much else. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The only source is a personal web page. Could not see other major coverage. It is in fact a resume, not an article. Delete per WP:PROMO WP:N, etc. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the artist's CV (http://www.josephinebroekhuizen.com/about/) lists an exhibition in a Coffeeshop (Netherlands) in 1988 as a solo exhibit; this is not a notable artist. Vexations (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuneful Teachers[edit]

Tuneful Teachers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BEFORE check yielded only the Free Lance-Star article cited in the stub. Have yet to find more coverage other than an announcement of their performance in a concert or a passing mention, usually part of a bio of a former member. If I missed some guideline, policy, or existing consensus that overrides WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, or if evidence exists that the subject could meet inclusion criteria in six months, please let me know; I would be open to moving the page back to draftspace in that case. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I also can find nothing useful beyond the one newspaper article already cited on the page. Otherwise they appear in brief gig announcements and their own self-created websites. The article's bizarre formatting indicates to me that it was directly copy/pasted from somewhere else, and no Wikipedia article on any band lists every single one of their songs and every single one of their performances. Also, the article says that it came from the Articles for Creation process, but it appears that nobody on that team reviewed it, as indicated by its many style errors. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The creator moved the draft without going through AfC. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 23:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The "bizarre formatting" mentioned in my vote has been fixed, though we do have an admission below about text being "transferred" from elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• the information on [Tuneful Teachers' official site] is being transferred here (emphasis added). Neither Earwig nor my brief skim of the official site pages found copied text. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So what? Below, the article creator said that the singing group's current site is being deleted and "the information on it is being transferred here for purposes of being archived". The difference between text and information is irrelevant; transferred and archived are the terms to discuss. Wikipedia is not an archive for dead/dying websites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regardless, the main point is that we have yet to find sources showing the subject meets criteria for a standalone article. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to "the bizarre formatting" -- this is because the author is amateur at coding. The tone of this notion to delete comes off as an attack to the author rather than any breach of Wiki standards. There are no copyright violations as the creator of the media is the director of this publication. The flagged wordpress site is in process of deletion and the information on it is being transferred here for purposes of being archived. This page is still being edited. --Jared — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredVPurcell (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This debate isn't about you and your skill level, it's about Tuneful Teachers. The issue is their notability, and the article really does breach several Wikipedia standards for formatting and content. Wikipedia is also not a place to archive material from a different website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with DOOMSDAYER520's comments. Peter303x (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rawls[edit]

Shaun Rawls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a promotional article and person is not meeting WP:GNG. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Aloolkaparatha (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I agree with the nominator. This is subject to WP:PROMO. And not enough independent coverage. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete only sources I have found are interviews or trying to sell his book. There's little to write about here, subject is the author of one book. NemesisAT (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mainsail (company)[edit]

Mainsail (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very borderline A7 eligible article on a non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:NCORP as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. Furthermore a before search turns up nothing concrete. Needless to say WP:ORGDEPTH is absent Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Estopedist1 (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability.Misasory (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Imcdc (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General Richard Butler Vagabonds Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

General Richard Butler Vagabonds Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Wholly unsourced, not even to DCI. Fails WP:BAND. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem, other incidental mentions are insufficient to establish notability. Acroterion (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Well spotted. This has been in wikipedia for over 10 years with not a single source. --Bduke (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator--yet another non-notable organization from the DCI walled garden, lacking secondary sourcing. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article created in 2013 with a maintenance tag from 2009 and no sources. Has no sources even now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find independent coverage that goes in-depth about the subject matter. Imcdc (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Deb, CSD A7: No credible indication of importance; CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Dom[edit]

Dark Dom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography on a YouTuber with no WP:RS cited and nothing better found in a search of 'Dark Dom' or 'domsoepic'. He is very popular but that doesn't necessarily guarantee notability. I can't find anything to show a passing of WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I couldn't find any coverage from my own google search and therefore fails WP:GNG. However, I don't think that this is an autobiography and it was probably made by a fan impersonating him. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 19:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. Feels especially squicky that this is a high school student. — GhostRiver 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is a WP:G11 issue, and the individual is clearly non-notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. Deb (talk) 09:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alvix[edit]

Alvix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of Citations and Unsourced Citations Shoo Mila (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Promo page for a less than notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Ode+Joy (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete couldn't find any coverage, Lack of citations, Fails WP:GNG·Misasory (talk) 09:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. He doesn't have an article on the Swedish or Persian Wikis either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Orphan page. Imcdc (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Article has been moved to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aalaap mein girah[edit]

Aalaap mein girah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't pass GNG nor WP:NBOOKS. Gazal world (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This was moved to the draft namespace by User:Advait.kansal. This has been in the article namespace since 2010, but WP:DRAFTIFY suggests that you should try AfD instead of moving to the draft namespace if the page has been around for a long time. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Stefan2, Thanks for correcting me. I shall keep a note of this going forward. Advait (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dogbert's New Ruling Class[edit]

Dogbert's New Ruling Class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very old short stub about a minor defunct newsletter with no significant coverage. Should be a redirect to a section within the main Dilbert article like how Induhviduals from around the same time became. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the mailing list fails WP:SIGCOV. Geschichte (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani ethnic groups[edit]

Azerbaijani ethnic groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire article, being basically nothing more than a few Wikipedia links, is a duplicate of content which can already be found at Azerbaijanis#Subgroups and Iranian Azerbaijanis#Ethnic groups. In addition to WP:POVFORK, the article contains serious violations of WP:RS, as almost every listed "source" was published in the Soviet Union and/or the Republic of Azerbaijan, political entities known for having no freedom of press (see; Censorship in the Soviet Union, Media freedom in Azerbaijan) and being major proponents of historical negationism (see; Historical negationism#Soviet history, Historical negationism#Azerbaijan). - LouisAragon (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect per WP:OVERLAP and WP:POVFORK. Pahlevun (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an obvious content fork per above. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT reason #1. No rationale advanced and no one else recommends deletion. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-Strike coaching bug scandal[edit]

Counter-Strike coaching bug scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Why? ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - nominator has failed to provide a reason as to why the article should be deleted Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Non-existent rationale aside, there's some truly awful writing and sourcing going on in the article. Probably not in the projects best interest to simply close this out and forget about it just because they didn't write up a nom. Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Not all the sources are great, but there are sources from ESPN and the BBC that discuss this specific incident. ApLundell (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per ApLundell, sources in the article provide for notability as the event has been covered by multiple reliable sources. ColinBear (talk - contributions) 20:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Where is the rationale?! The topic is notable. For example, See these PC Gamer articles[2][3][4]. However the article needs improvement. Mann Mann (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this is definitely a documentable event from RSes for the VG project, given that no one involved is a notable individual, I don't know if we need to list the names here, and without that table this seems like something that can be merged into a more comprehensive article. --Masem (t) 04:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #4: nominator is globally locked as an LTA, and no one else has commented. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korhan Başaran[edit]

Korhan Başaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't see any notability for this person عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --عائشة المقدسي (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 14:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Chipchase[edit]

Julie Chipchase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Chipchase fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played for or managed a club in a WP:FPL or a senior national team. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies as this was created 7 days after her death and the bulk of the sources are post death/not independent/unreliable. Dougal18 (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Chipchase is an important figure in the historical development of English women's football. Although more recent sources were generated after her death, their content go beyond mere obituary and describe in detail her accomplishments (primarily as the manager of Donny Belles, one of the dominant clubs in the previous era). She was also discussed in several scholarly works on the history of English women's football, therefore more than satisfies WP:GNG. Seany91 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I think this meets GNG. Evidently a significant figure in women's football. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets GNG. GiantSnowman 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as my reading of sources, I can conclude that, passes WP:GNG.Brayan ocaner (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article has been improved substantially since nomination and evidently meets the minimum standard. Likely warrants a WP:DYK Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article has now been spammed with sources that barely mention her - if they mention her at all. Good to know that dying and having local press write about it now ensures a GNG pass. Dougal18 (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to her death, there is an entire magazine page here, which is completely about her. A lot of the post-death coverage is quite strong and that's why we're able to build a biography from it. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The post death coverage is a few lines of biographical info padded out with a bunch of quotes from people that have some connection to Chipchase . I was under the impression that didn't count for notability purposes. She wouldn't pass GNG alive so why does dying make this any different? Dougal18 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are smart enough you withdrawal the nomination. Post-death sources count as long as the sources are in dept coverage in reliable secondary sources sources. Secondly, you don’t have to distinguish between local sources as GNG doesn’t distinguish between local and national sources. Third, go out and see there is coverage of her in off line sources (as she was notable before the internet era). And last, if you read her importance, this is defenately an article the Reader wants per Wikipedia:Readers first. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How rude. Just because your former colleagues claim you are a "pioneer" does not make you so. Chipchase wasn't notable in life despite the post death hagiography in the town/county newspaper. Dougal18 (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your remarks seem somewhat personal – I suggest you follow the good advice you were given and back off by withdrawing the nomination. While I would not readily use a word like pioneer in Julie Chipchase's case, there is no doubt from the online coverage alone that she was a significant figure in the growth of ladies' football. The magazine article cited above is evidence of her notability in terms of offline coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep After Bring back Daz Sampson improvements the article is in a much better state. Showing she clearly passes GNG. Someone should give Bring back Daz Sampson a barnster and trout Dougal18 at the same time. Govvy (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep gosh, look at those references - always did pass GNG, as the test is notability of the person, not how well the article is listed. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should be ok now based on the improvements made by Bring back Daz Sampson. Imcdc (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Devils C Drum and Bugle Corps[edit]

Blue Devils C Drum and Bugle Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability, no placement first, second or third in national competition. Significant independent sources do not appear to exist outside the walled-garden Drum Corps International ecosystem. This is a feeder organization for a higher-level band, and could be mentioned there. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Acroterion (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Blue Devils Drum and Bugle Corps: Non-notable as few sources exist outside of the DCI-sphere. Would be a solid section in the BD page. Curbon7 (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. --Bduke (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I've been meaning to propose merging all the Open Class members into a single Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists article and lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richardson International[edit]

Richardson International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not the best sourced article but being one of the largest private corps in Canada, I think it does meet WP:NCORP. Masterhatch (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question do you think we'd be better off draftifying it and allowing editors time to improve the sourcing?

We could allow for improving the article or possibly merge relevant info with the parent company James Richardson & Sons. (There's already some info on this article there) Masterhatch (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Masterhatch (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question did you vote twice?

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Trainer[edit]

Russell Trainer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created without sources in 2010 (Special:Permalink/351674872), and I couldn't find any that cover him in-depth or verify any biographical information. His name is mentioned in several sources with relation to his 1966 book The Lolita Complex (specifically a 1969 translation) as the source of the Japanese usage, but that is about all I can find (and I don't think the book is notable enough for an article either; I added Stapleton 2016, which gives a very brief description, and apparently there was a very short review, or perhaps just an ad, in The NYT Book Review in 1966 [5]). I was unable to find any information about his other books, which based on the titles and what the article says appear to be erotic pulp paperbacks and faux "case studies" in the vein of The Lolita Complex.

"None of his publishers is known to have ever supplied a biography, but Russell Trainer's family states..." from the first revision makes me think that the editor who wrote this was perhaps a family friend conducting original research. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Goszei (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Supply shooting[edit]

Catholic Supply shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This event has failed to demonstrate any WP:LASTING effect, almost three years after the fact. Many of the sources used for this article are local ones, and the national news outlets used as sources here have clearly dropped the story after about a day or two. Love of Corey (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There was some controversy surrounding the death penalty in this case but reports from 2019 say the prosecutor won't be pursuing the death penalty. Once the trial concludes I don't expect lasting coverage. Spudlace (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete, per nominator's correct assessment of fleeting non-local coverage. The world is full of somewhat bizarre murders. BD2412 T 15:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Just another, all-too-common incident in the shooting range that is the gun-mad US. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 12:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biotechnology Innovation Organization[edit]

Biotechnology Innovation Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relatively small lobbying organization. References are from its own publications, and from mere announcements. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Looking at the BEFORE news results at least, I don't think it's fair to say that this is a "small lobbying organization." They seem to be a fairly significant trade group for this industry. Reasonable minds can differ about the sufficiency of the coverage but, at least to me, I think the relevant notability guidelines are met. DocFreeman24 (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The WSJ has in-depth coverage of the organization in 2020 that begins with the CEO but also includes board members: The Advice That Gave a Biotech Exec a Shot in the Arm. Beccaynr (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Also: Biotech Industry Pushes Trump Administration to Release New Vaccine Guidelines (NYT, 2020, "BIO’s members include many of the major pharmaceutical companies, including all of the coronavirus vaccine makers except AstraZeneca."), ABC11, 2020, describes BIO as "the largest trade group representing pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions". Beccaynr (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC) "In early 2020 BIO debuted the Coronavirus Collaboration Initiative" (Forbes, 2021), Change is messy’: Inside the tumultuous efforts to stabilize BIO, the biotech lobby (STAT, 2021), Exclusive: Top drug lobbyist to depart next year (Politico, 2019), Paul Hastings' journey from patient to one of biotech's leading voices (SF Business Times, 2021) - I am updating my comment to a keep !vote, because there are multiple WP:SIRS, with WP:CORPDEPTH that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization, and per WP:AUD, there is significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media that is independent. Beccaynr (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing the AfD Looking further, it seems Beccaynr has it right. I've perhaps been influenced by working too much on clearly promotional corporate articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qualia (company)[edit]

Qualia (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Almost all the referencces are routine notices about funding and the like, DGG ( talk ) 09:37, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose/keep I've noticed that this company is either not tagged or tagged incorrectly as qualia on existing pages. I can look to add addtional information if that would help notability, thanks. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions, thanks! — Preceding undated comment added 14:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - present references are all fundraising, and a quick WP:BEFORE shows a sea of press releases and press release churnalism. This just doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Best I can say is WP:TOOSOON - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails SIGCOV. Sources are not independent but paid PR campaigns. ^Ramaswar_(discuss) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem is many of the sources are press releases or they are just routine mentions. It also doesn't help the article is heavily promotional. Imcdc (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge. There is consensus here that this is not viable as a standalone article. The arguments to keep are quite weak, with no evidence of notability being provided. The arguments to delete based on NOTDATABASE are stronger, but at the moment there is not consensus for outright deletion; the notability of the broader topic was only mentioned in a couple of comments. There were some suggestions that this be closed as "no consensus" to allow a merger discussion, but I think weak consensus for a merger exists; it only remains to determine the scope of this merger. Once that has occurred, if the notability of the broader topic remains in doubt, a new AfD would be necessary, and so I see no prejudice against renomination here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masters M85 triple jump world record progression[edit]

Masters M85 triple jump world record progression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We should have a discussion about this. Masters W85 weight throw world record progression was prod-deleted today, having been nominated with the rationale: "Unsourced article which lacks notability. The progression of this record (and most such Masters records) is not a subject that gets enough attention[1] to warrant an article, which also explains why it is so incomplete."

Personally I would like to see this go, because it violates WP:NOTDATABASE. Master's athletics, though it has its connaisseurs, gets very little coverage even on world-championship level. Even more so when it comes to world records - although there is the occasional press profile on a master's athlete here and there. Master's athletes don't become notable in the enclopedic sense through holding these world records, so the list is not a navigational tool between the athletes. Therefore I believe this list should be confined to another, statistical website. Geschichte (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Data like this can be found nowhere, so it's a very good addition. I once started to make a combined page for all ages, but after the high jump I've stopped. See Masters_women_high_jump_world_record_progression. Someone able to do this for all disciplines can await my applause. WeiaR (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant: the data can be found, but not organised like this. That's what an encyclopedia is good for. The governing body by the way is World Masters Association, not World Athletics. WeiaR (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting Weia, the organization is World Masters Athletics. This same information could also be derived from a chronological breakdown of their records over the years. That would actually be the most accurate source since they are the official world governing body.Trackinfo (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is true that the data can be found nowhere else, it constitutes WP:Original research or WP:Synthesis and fails Wikipedias WP:V policy... Geschichte (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no official position over this but there is a whole category of masters track and field records here: Category:Masters athletics world record progressions, so we will have to apply the name rationale to all other records articles in this category. And if they are certified by World Athletics, the official governing body of the sport, then there is good reason for them to remain. Ajf773 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP The assertion that this is unsourced is unfounded. The source from Mastersathletics.net has always been on the page. Other record progressions contain multiple sources, the one you chose to pick on, a lesser event in the M85 division is based only on the one source though if you push it, I can probably find some mentions in the historical archive of National Masters News reporting on mastershistory.org. The point Weia made is this is the only place and the appropriate place the progression has been put into coherent chronological order, an improvement over the original source. World record progressions, the historical sequence of world record achievements, is a common presentation for not only track and field records but for other sports as well. Every record is a unique achievement, to that point in time, nobody had ever achieved it before. Such an achievement WP:NTEMP is notable in itself even after it has been surpassed. Roger Bannister's 4 minute mile has been surpassed now well over a thousand times, but when he did it, he became legend. These world records with the age qualifier are noticed by fewer people certainly but are still equivalent.Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOTDATABASE.4meter4 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any reason this article is more or less notable than the other record lists at Category:Masters athletics world record progressions; I'm not sure how to bulk-handle 400 possible follow-up deletion discussions if there is consensus to delete. This does seem to violate WP:NOTDATABASE; there isn't even a hint that these progressions are discussed anywhere else. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Waddles 🗩 🖉 14:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the 12 small age group pages Masters M35 triple jump world record progression, M40, M45, M50, M55, M60, M65, M70, M75, M80, M85, M90 to a new Masters men triple jump world record progression with a section per age group, like Masters women high jump world record progression by WeiaR. I suggested this for all Masters athletics events at User talk:Trackinfo/Archive 3#Masters world record progressions. Trackinfo made the articles and opposed like here. I didn't pursue it. If it's not merged then delete as not individually notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression to show how a merger of the 12 articles could look. It's still a small article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mass articles with internal links makes the editing process and linking process more difficult. Those were my grounds on the previous objection. The size of the small articles doesn't seem relevant. Obviously you have an objection to it. If it will save the content, I'll concede that point. Trackinfo (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed by PrimeHunter. The progressions themselves are permastubs, and have a better claim to notbility as a single article collecting all subsets. BD2412 T 04:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP: The records are kept by an official governing body. WMA has an official Records Chairperson, hence the records going through an official channel before they are ratified. Masters Track and Field is one of the first Masters sports. Masters competitions are held world wide. Official record keeping of Masters Track and Field started in the late 1960s. Masters Track and Field is officially recognized by World Athletics and USATF. Including the records in Wiki makes sense. PlainDonut (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere, possibly as proposed by PrimeHunter (with sweet sandboxing). This discussion deserves broader attention, the outcome potentially affecting hundreds of current pages as pointed out above. Trackinfo has created a large number of accurate single-sourced stubs. Trackinfo has had a large say in how this material was organized because, well, they organized it. I appreciate that accomplished user's enormous contributions. These stubs are not about routine sports outcomes; they represent certified historic world records which will never change but always will be improved (until the limits of the human body are reached). I'm inclined to want to keep such data on Wikipedia. A reasonable argument could be made they belong at Triple jump world record progression#Men or Masters triple jump world record progression#Men. Looking at List of world records in masters athletics I can see something of why Trackinfo wants to keep them as they are. The (progression) link is a handy way of getting to the material from the overall list. However, if the age-grouping pages could be unified somewhere, anywhere, those links could be appropriately redirected. I'd like to see Trackinfo's concerns addressed, possibly in a more generic discussion elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: After due consideration and looking at other sports groupings, I'd like to see all these (already created) progression by age group articles to be merged by individual discipline like the existing high jump page and the suggested triple jump sandbox. Redirects to appropriate subheads inside the new page. I'm interested in discussion from Trackinfo about why this has been suggested to them for several years (by folks here in this discussion) and never agreed to. I'd be interested in hearing the arguments against because they are not readily apparent to me. BusterD (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all the age classes to Masters triple jump world record progression with an individual table for each class. All these tables are quite short and are highly unlikely to grow significantly any time soon. Together they make a substantial page and I cannot see any argument for a navigation problem when all the information is right there on the same page. SpinningSpark 17:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The women's records can go on the same page also with sections for men and women. No need for a separate page there either. SpinningSpark 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Masters triple jump world record progression, as per SpinningSpark. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It doesn't look like there will be consensus to delete. A merge will involve at least 12 articles for men's triple jump, 22 if women are included, 19+ if all M85 events are merged instead of triple jump, 28+ if all M85 and W85 are merged, and 400+ if the whole Category:Masters athletics world record progressions is treated similarly as I think should, no matter which way that is. Only one article was tagged for this AfD, and it had a total of 3 page views [6] in the month before, 0 in the two weeks before. I suggest a close as no consensus to delete. Then we can have a centralized merge discussion about all 400+ articles with tags on all, and notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics and Talk:List of world records in masters athletics. I suggest holding the discussion at the latter. I'm willing to set up the discussion with all the tags, and make all the merges (maybe spread over days or weeks) if there is consensus for a system. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reason to wait on this one given local consensus on the specific topics addressed. I would keep separate pages for men's and women's records (which is a common point of separation throughout the encyclopedia), but otherwise merge all triple jump world record progressions into two gendered articles. We can separately discuss which other records also merit such treatment. BD2412 T 05:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed my concerns about article size at User talk:BusterD#Masters world records progressions, but I'll make that more public here and expand: The Masters world record progressions are a direct adjunct of List of world records in masters athletics. As in every other world record page that has progressions, the link is event specific, or in better wikipedia terms "subject specific," rather than a hodge podge of sublinks. When editing, you go directly to the article in question rather than a mass article and then needing to find the correct section to edit. For each sublink, all the targeting must be perfect or the user is taken to the wrong place. The user will be confused. Editing to articles is not limited to people who know what they are doing, anybody can edit meaning, in the process of adding new, relevant information, the linkage can be destroyed by someone who doesn't understand all this code. Yes it can be fixed once somebody notices, but that means somebody needs to notice. I'm monitoring 16,000 pages. Stuff slips by me sometimes.

In the case of the article under attack, yes the number of instances of improvement have been few. There are very few athletes qualified to attempt such a record, the requirements being male, 85+ years old and still capable of jumping in the very specific fashion required for triple jump. I've got decades before I can attempt it.

Let me ask you, why the concern about the size of the article. Yes the server has size limitations on large articles because it slows things down. On the List of world records in athletics we had to pare things down to make spacing work and its still slow to load. Another one I'm involved in is List of deaths due to COVID-19 which has been revamped multiple times to reduce size and its still huge. On the List of high schools in California, it used to include Los Angeles County and even Los Angeles City Schools in the master list (same for San Diego County) through sublinks. That got so screwed up repeatedly, we've just given up and post a link to the county list and it then links further to List of Los Angeles Unified School District schools.

Small articles do not cause the same problem. We use small templates constantly in our articles to make repetitive functions work. Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay world record progression is a small article because it has a short history. I don't see that under attack. Small articles only look like low hanging fruit to deletionists who want a new something to target. Deletionists are the cancer that will destroy wikipedia from the inside.Trackinfo (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Commentary aside, the technical point is intriguing and if I read your evaluation correctly, unavoidable. Why have you not raised this point in the discussion, where knowledgeable folks are engaged? For my part, I'm not sure of the limitations of the software. When I see a wikipedian with lots of years and loads of essential page creations in an important content arena, I presume they know why they do things, so I'm here to help. Is there some diff in the examples you've provided here which helps make your case? BusterD (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

More simply put, we have unexperienced editors making contributions to these articles. [7] was this week to a related records article. Yes, I noticed and fixed it. Other like [8] languish for years until they were essentially bypassed with less efficient displays of information [9]. By keeping the editing simpler, without the complex links, this requires less editing technique from the freelance editors. And stub articles don't hurt anything.Trackinfo (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You created List of world records in masters athletics which is 267 kB with 66 sections but you think User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression with 8 kB and 12 sections is too large and should be 12 separate articles to be manageable. I don't quite understand that. If section links like Men 85 break in the future due to renamed sections then readers are taken to the top with a TOC where it should take seconds to click the age group they were looking for. If section headings are removed then it's a little harder but easily reverted, and it's easier to watch one article than 12. List of world records in masters athletics has bigger problems with section navigation because 31 section headings are duplicated against MOS:SECTION. For this and size reasons it should be split by gender. We write for the readers. I think it's interesting to follow the decline with age in User:PrimeHunter/Masters men triple jump world record progression and see the same people often setting smaller and smaller records. Masters M85 triple jump world record progression gives no context and as mentioned, had three page views in a month. It's difficult for readers to navigate to the other age groups from it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm glad User:Trackinfo has reposted this quote here (aside from the deletionist commentary which I find distracting and wish was struck). In a case where an article is massive like List of world records in masters athletics (a case where splitting isn't yet being discussed and seems impractical), does the article benefit more from smaller linked articles like the nominee here or from adding almost 400 lengthy more complex redirects from our imagined "merged by discipline" targets? Is this a criterion appropriate to apply in a deletion discussion? This is a baby/bathwater situation; I have no reason to doubt Trackinfo's good faith expression of experiences with similar situations. Is this an issue? Should we urge close as "no consensus" as User:PrimeHunter suggests and then have a more centralized discussion? Where would we raise such a discussion? BusterD (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Primehunter and Spinningspark. Agletarang (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Britannic-class ocean liner[edit]

Britannic-class ocean liner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources in the article that I can access refer to a “Britannic class” and a search does not produce anything else that does either. I think the article creator just made it up. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abyssinia-class ocean liner. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The news that there is no Britannic class came too late for the December 1929 edition of The Shipbuilder (page 874) which said, concerning Harland and Wolff at Belfast: "the adjoining berth is being reserved for the second motorship of the Britannic class for the White Star line which will be begun immediately".[10] Thincat (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Good find. Are there any other sources that use the term? The instance in “The Shipbuilder” sounds to me like possibly a bit of journalistic free writing rather than an authoritative statement. Significantly the article creator didn’t appear to have found and usage of the term either. Mccapra (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks authoritative to me but it is on Google as an ebook (link above) so decide for yourself. I know nothing about ships so I won't give any further opinion. Thincat (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence that "Britannic class" had any official usage or that there has been any widespread use of the term - it is not surprising that through the use of normal English, occasionally a journalist will come up with that phrase - but that does not come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG. Davidships (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Davidships and none of the usual RS describe these ships as a class Lyndaship (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddler: A Miracle of Miracles[edit]

Fiddler: A Miracle of Miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Documentary does not meet WP:FILM- coverage consists of routine announcements. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. MrsSnoozyTurtle 21:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The film has been the subject of full-length reviews in major outlets like The New York Times and Rolling Stone, establishing notability. I've added references to some of these reviews to the article. AJD (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AJD's additions. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sorry, but this appears to be a WP:BEFORE failure. There's a world of difference between "routine announcements" and full-length reviews in major publications. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ✗plicit 13:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Staurogyne[edit]

Staurogyne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No source since its creation over a decade. Fade258 (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I found this source which I believe is notable:

https://www.biotaxa.org/Phytotaxa/article/view/phytotaxa.296.1.1

It is an academic journal article that addresses the topic in detail. The source is reliable because it was published in the peer-reviewed journal Phytotaxa, and the authors are affiliated with universities in Brazil. You can download the PDF and read the article in its entirety. I plan to add the source to the page and expand the article. Bwmdjeff (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, AfD isn't clean-up. Sources clearly exist. Staurogyne_bicolor, linking from the genus-article, is referenced. Staurogyne_elegans and Staurogyne_hirsuta also linking from this article, while not formally referenced, give a citation. Staurogyne_minarum has external links that might be helpful, while Staurogyne_sichuanica, also linked from this article, is referenced. None of the species articles are much more than stubs. A google search for Staurogyne produces an enormous number of hits for Staurogyne repens, which is apparently widely used in aquariums; so many hits it's hard to find anything else. But here is a reference to the genus in general [11] in efloras.org; here's the entry in theplantlist.org [12]; here's Kew's reference [13] it's rather hard to imagine that no "serious" textbooky references are available; there's certainly primary stuff too [14]. It'd be plain weird to delete this one with reference. Elemimele (talk) 13:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:DINC and WP:HEY. Skeptical the nominator performed a WP:BEFORE check. Curbon7 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @Fade258: maybe read up on ((More citations needed)) and try that next time. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, Hi, Before I nominated this article for AFD there is no any refrences were present. All the refrences were added after the nomination for AFD. Don't worry wait for the closing of this discussion. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fade258: then you could use ((Unreferenced)). --awkwafaba (📥) 13:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba:, sure for next time. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to List of Formula One constructors. I don't see a consensus to keep. I am going to redirect to List of Formula One constructors post-deletion; since there's a lot of discussion about how this is duplicative of that, I think it's useful to retain a redirect to catch any searchers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Formula One Constructors[edit]

Timeline of Formula One Constructors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely fails WP:SIGCOV - sources that cover this are exclusively WP:SPS. Also note that Wikipedia has a template which does a constructor timeline. (I had done a WP:PROD but the article creater removed the tag making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument.) SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. SSSB (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Care to link to the template that provides a constructor timeline? I can't immediately find it. SpinningSpark 10:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpinningSpark: Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979) and Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present). It's not exactly the same - but close enough. SSSB (talk) 10:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's interesting that these templates are not transcluded anywhere into article space. Have they ever been? It's not so surprising then, that a timeline has been recreated on a standalone page. SpinningSpark 18:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nom gives two reasons for delete. The first is lack of SIGCOV. The book Formula 1: the Official History is not previewable but its blurb includes "This book charts the... arrival and departure of manufacturers". That's a synonym for timeline. There is also Formula 1: Car by Car also not previewable but a publication that covers all cars in a period is going to cover the constructor of each car. I'm pretty sure there are more, but not online accessible. The second reason given is that timeline templates already exist. They do, but they are not transcluded into article space so they may as well not exist. Some kind of merge may be in order though. SpinningSpark 19:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpinningSpark: that is all well and good, but the what those books contain is present in List of Formula One constructors. As far as I can therefore tell, this arguement at best supports merging this visual timeline into that list. SSSB (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @SpinningSpark: I have the 1950-59 book in the same series ("Formula 1: Car by car") and it is not written as a timeline of constructors in anything resembling this article. It is divided into "superchapters" by season, with "subchapters" discussing the season from the perspective of each entrant. This kind of thing belongs in season and constructor/team articles. A7V2 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect/Merge - There is nothing meaningful in this article that isn't already in List of Formula One constructors, in particular List of Formula One constructors#2021 constructors. I think create an anchor there (eg something like "current constructors") and redirect there. Perhaps some of the text can be carried over too, so perhaps this could be considered a merge. I also agree with the nom regarding significant coverage: there are many books which give a kind of overview/timeline of the cars used in Formula 1, but not really the constructors, and not in the way that this article does. But this is a moot point if we redirect. A7V2 (talk) 06:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SSSB: I noticed looking at the history of List of Formula One constructors that the duplicate of the visual timeline from this article was added to List of Formula One constructors less than 24 hours before this nom was made [15], and likely you didn't notice it/know about it. That edit probably should be tagged as copying within wikipedia, and so the article being discussed here probably needs to be kept (at least as a redirect) for attribution purposes. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As both are done by the same editor (based on the page history) this doesn't need to be kept per WP:NOATT (If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary.) SSSB (talk) 09:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there is one other contributor to the page with one edit besides editors adding deletion templates. So as it stands at the moment WP:ATTSIT, WP:PROMERGE, and WP:MAD apply and the page history must be kept for attribution purposes even if redirected. SpinningSpark 09:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a segment of the page was copied over, none of the content of the edit from the other used were carried over (with the exception of the removal of spaces which was effectily a Help:Dummy edit change), or doesn't that matter? SSSB (talk) 09:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the contributions of the second editor came after the content was copied over ( 23:22, 8 October 2021 and 18:09, 8 October 2021‎ respectively). So the second editors contributions aren't transcluded onto List of Formula One constructors in any case. SSSB (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably if we aren't sure then better to err on the side of putting a dummy edit or something acknowledging it. And I definitely stand by my suggestion to redirect this rather than outright delete. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article really has no purpose, everything is covered in List of Formula One constructors. BMB YT 500000(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have edited the page since this discussion began, users here may want to review these changes. I implemented Spinningspark's suggestion to include the constructor history templates, so they are now in article space. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not exactly what I had in mind. You now have two timelines in the same article covering the same ground with possibly contradictory information. SpinningSpark 22:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I understand your point, bringing those into the page actually makes it less useful as it is showing related by distinct data. I will revert my edit Vanteloop (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The information isn't contradictary at all. The timeline is more accuratly described as a timeline of the constructor names that teams used. i.e. the Alpine F1 Team have existed since 1981. From 1981-'85 they were the consturctor Toleman, from 1986-'01 they were the constructor Renault,..., from 2021 they were the constructor Alpine. As shown by the "Antecedent teams" column in the list. SSSB (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first reason given is SIGCOV. This has been adressed already so I will not retread that ground. The second is a WP:OTHERCONTENT argument, but the the content in question is distinct. They are showing two seperate things. Vanteloop (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Vanteloop (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

  WP:OTHERCONTENT was the argument you made when you removed ((PROD)) - I haven't made that argument, you did.

  The content in Timeline of Formula One Constructors isn't distinct to the content at List of Formula One constructors at all. It's just represented in a different way. SSSB (talk) 10:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid that's simply not true. For just one example List of Formula One constructors shows the Mercedes team as being in F1 in 1950. This is different to Timeline of Formula One Constructors, which doesn't show any Mercedes involvement until 2010. Neither are incorrect , but the pages are showing two distinct sets of information. One is showing a sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body, the other is showing a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity. It is correct to say Mercedes did not exist before 2010 in the first context, and incorrect in the second. Just because there is WP:OTHERCONTENT related to F1 manufacturers doesn't mean this page isn't distinct, and notable (as covered above) Vanteloop (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid it simply is true.

  If you look at List of Formula One constructors you will see that it shows both Mercedes as "sporting entity as recognised by the sport's governing body" and Mercedes as "a self-identifying (albeit widely recognised) identity." (the latter through the "Antecedent teams" column of the table and the various footnotes). So there is nothing in the timeline which isn't already in the list (espically given you put the timeline in the list anyway) SSSB (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm genuinely not trying to be difficult here or go round in circles but if you look at that page, the team listed as Mercedes is shown to have competed in the 1954 season. This is true for the information on that page, but not true for the other page. As mentioned in my previous comment, this is because they are showing two similar (but distinct!) sets of information. Furthermore, Mercedes is not considered a 'former constructor' on that page etc etc. I agree that by adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page as Spinningspark noted so maybe that should be removed. Again I apologise if i'm being difficult (I am new) but its just plainly not true that the two articles are discussing the same thing (although they are very similar I agree!) Vanteloop (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  ...adding the timeline into the List of Formula One constructors page[,] it may have muddied the waters by including two contradictory data sets on the same page... - on the contrary. It makes more sense to put them in the same article - because then we can clearly explain why there is a contradiction. Otherwise readers have a different impression depending on which article they happen to be looking at. Putting them into different articles makes the water muddier.

  The team listed as Mercedes did compete in F1 in 1954-55. Mercedes is not a former constructor by any definition. They are both discussing the same thing - which constructors/teams competed and when - they just take different approaches. So it makes more sense to bundle them together - where we can properly explain the difference. SSSB (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself ^[1]. The history of the Mercedes team begins with Tyrell as shown there, therefore the Mercedes team of 1954 is no longer on the grid. Again I'm sorry if this is just me being a pedant but I feel we're not making much progress here so I will wait for other contributions Vanteloop (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Merecedes is a former team as defined by Formula One itself - that's not what the source says at all. It just points out that the only similarity between the 1950s Mercedes and the 2010-present Mercedes is the ownership and name and that the current Mercecdes team has origins with Tyrrell. Saying that this makes the 1950's Mercedes a "former" team is then your WP:OR. It only proves that there may be justification in WP:MERGEing the articles, rather than an out-and-out deletion. SSSB (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As stated above i dont feel we're making progress so I will wait for other contributors. Please stop reverting the edits on the page which quote the official Formula 1 source there is no need to take to editing the page for disagreements here. Please bear in mind WP:BLUDGEON Vanteloop (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI've seen mention of the templates (Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1950–1979), Template:Formula One constructor timeline (1980–present)) and see that they were added then removed from this article. There was a discussion last year with clear consensus that these templates aren't suitable for use, and I think they should be deleted but that is a separate discussion. In any case, they contain too many issues to use as they are now. A7V2 (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, I wasn't aware of this, as you say the templates have been removed and won't be re-added based on the linked discussion. Vanteloop (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is just a content fork. There is nothing meaningful here that isn’t already presented elsewhere.Tvx1 02:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as information contained in this article already exists at List of Formula One constructors GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant, we don't need a standalone article dedicated just to a timeline. Arguably a case of WP:NOSTATS.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Johnson (scientist)[edit]

Michael Johnson (scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Science blogger. no signifcant publication so does not meet WP:PROF. I don't think there;s evidence here for WP:GNG either. DGG ( talk ) 09:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Re WP:NPROF: assistant professor with reasonable but unexceptional cites. Re WP:GNG: no substantial outside coverage (that I can find) aside from the one blog article-let. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've only found the SciAm item already included and this. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, saw the latter, but I'd characterize it as a plain CV copy that is listed only because Johnson is an African American. Not a great source. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. GNG doesn't appear to be met, and certainly not NPROF unless someone can demonstrate C7. Just an early-career researcher with early-career Scopus citations. Compared to his 94 coauthors with 5+ (a very low number in this field; some undergrads have that many papers!) papers: Total citations: average: 6597, median: 1795, Johnson: 547. Total papers: avg: 79, med: 38, J: 22. h-index: avg: 29, med: 20, J: 13. Top 5 citations: 1st: avg: 677, med: 344, J: 105. 2nd: avg: 428, med: 176, J: 94. 3rd: avg: 303, med: 148, J: 52. 4th: avg: 255, med: 113, J: 42. 5th: avg: 221, med: 105, J: 38. JoelleJay (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely interested in which undergrads you know with 5 papers JoelleJay. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Full disclosure, I made this page. Johnson may be a relatively early career scientist, but he's making waves nationally and internationally; e.g. he delivered the 2021 NIH Director's Early Career Investigator Lecture (https://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/meetings/Pages/2020-nigms-directors-early-career-investigator-lecture.aspx), given by one researcher across the states each year. Citation metrics are not a good estimate of who is / isn't a good scientist. Jesswade88 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too early. Giving an early career lecture is by no means sufficient for notability here. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PROF#C1 does mention invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof on citations. I note that he has a large number of coauthors so it is hard to attribute independent achievement. Try again in ten years time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Above. Maniik ^{🇮🇳Any Help🇮🇳? Contact Me.} 04:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, maybe in 10 years. --Bduke (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable as a biochemist or biophysicist. With a name like M Johnson he's not easy to search for without getting a huge amount of irrelevant hits. However, he has published mainly as MDL Johnson, which is much easier. He seems to have h = 11: not bad for a young assistant professor, but not wonderful. As Xxanthippe and Bduke say, maybe we should check back in ten years. Athel cb (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly doesn't meet WP:NPROF. Not convinced meets WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR either. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Johnson is well known for his science outreach advocacy in the minority in STEM community, including developing NSURP (summer research programs for Black and Latin students interested in science). The article needs substantial updating, though. eyoste (talk) 5:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. Ajpolino (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Ajpolino (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle McMurry-Heath[edit]

Michelle McMurry-Heath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)